Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Inigoes

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,538
    SoMD / West PA
    randian said:
    Why would Gore care about wasting taxpayer money? To an anti-gunner that would be a benefit.
    Click to expand...

    Sheriff's do have to be elected.

    He does not having the luxury of setting the tax rate, that would be the county government. When Gore blows the budget, every county agency/department would feel the effects.
     
    R

    randian

    Active Member
    Jan 13, 2012
    715
    I assume the budget includes litigation payouts, and its not as if any California governmental entity really cares about how much the taxpayers are being soaked. If they did their budgets wouldn't go up even in lean years, as they usually do.
     
    K

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,579
    Hazzard County
    krucam said:
    WTF? Sherriff Prieto & County of Yolo have already filed their own en banc request in Baker. Now an Amicus in Peruta? Just wanting to be sure, I guess...
    Click to expand...

    Cheaper/easier for them if Peruta is the case going forward and they just deal with the aftermath on remand.
     
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    Two more Amici came out yesterday from the usual grabbers in support of the Defendants (whoever that may be, since the AG was denied intervention)...

    1) Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 12/22/2014. [9358313] [10-56971] (KLM)
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

    2) Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Peace Officers’ Association. Date of service: 12/22/2014. [9358991] [10-56971] (MJM)
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...and-California-Peace-Officers-Association.pdf


    Approval is still required from the Court to make them "official", which will be coming shortly.
     
    P

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,912
    WV
    krucam said:
    Two more Amici came out yesterday from the usual grabbers in support of the Defendants (whoever that may be, since the AG was denied intervention)...

    1) Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 12/22/2014. [9358313] [10-56971] (KLM)
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

    2) Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Peace Officers’ Association. Date of service: 12/22/2014. [9358991] [10-56971] (MJM)
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...and-California-Peace-Officers-Association.pdf


    Approval is still required from the Court to make them "official", which will be coming shortly.
    Click to expand...

    It's always laughable how the Bradys say Peruta conflicts with SCOTUS precedent because Heller didn't specifically hold a right outside the home. Yet, it didn't hold that it doesn't extend outside the home, so at the very least it's an open question. But if all circuits held the 2A was confined to the home, you can bet the Bradys would say there's no need for SCOTUS to weigh in since the circuits are in agreement:sad20:
     
    rlc2

    rlc2

    Active Member
    Nov 22, 2014
    231
    left coast
    Brady echo paid progtard echo chamber

    Jerzee Transplant said:
    Brady Bunch's Table of Contents shows Conclusion on Pg "177" instead of 17.

    Some intern must have been in a rush.
    Click to expand...
    (fixed it for ya...)

    Sharp eyes at Calguns noted the Police Chief's and Other Useless Union Steward Bags Of Skin Association's amici brief
    is addressed to "The Honorable Judge Alex Kosinski"
    vs Judge Thomas who took over Dec 1...

    Hard to proofread when your head is so far up the AGs ...
    that her heart is beating your brains out...

    IANAL so dont take that as a legal opinion.
     
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    Multiple filings were submitted by Appellants (the good guy) this week, essentially 1) Opposing the Sua Sponte (CA9) call for en banc rehearing & 2) Appellee's (bad guys) Petition for Rehearing en banc.

    They're being graciously hosted by Michel & Associates in CA. Their Peruta page:
    http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

    The state of Hawaii, Brady's, CA Police Organization, etc submitted many Amicus in support of the rehearing en banc on 12/23. They're available at the above link.

    The Good guys' briefs (2) came in response yesterday, 12/24.

    12/24/2014 Appellant Appellant’s Response to Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc Regarding Intervention http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Rehearing-En-Banc-Regarding-Intervention.pdf

    Cliff's Note: They do NOT oppose the intervention of the Atty General.

    12/24/2014 Appellant Appellants’ Opposition to Sua Sponte Rehearing En Banc
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...pposition-to-Sua-Sponte-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

    Cliff's Note: They DO oppose to rehearing the case en banc.
    ​

    The NRA/Clement team is chomping the bit to have a party (State of California) involved in Peruta, but do NOT want it delayed with an en banc hearing. In other words, let's set this up for a visit to SCOTUS. :thumbsup:

    Additionally, yesterday an Amicus was approved, in opposition to rehearing.
    12/24/2014 Court Order re Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.’s Amicus Brief
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...tion-Inc-et-al-Opposing-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf
     
    Last edited:
    P

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,912
    WV
    Check out the Hawaii brief. They are taking the hard line approach of public carry is not protected, period. They also keep using bold lettering for words like "public safety", exc, like they're pulling off a Jedi mind trick. All in all more predictions of "blood in the streets," and of course, no mention of the 40-plus shall-issue states.
     
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    The Hawaii one was typical "Bood in the Streets" rhetoric that has no basis in reality. One only has to look at the 43 (?) states allowing licensed carry. Texas has evaluated licensed CHL carriers, finding license holders being more lawful than the population at large.
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

    SAF/Gura & Calguns Foundation (Richards case) submitted an Amicus as well opposing the rehearing en Banc of Peruta. Gura brings up some very good arguments as to why Peruta may not be the best vehicle for CA9 and/or SCOTUS, given the original defendant (Sheriff Gore) is no longer involved. AG Harris or the Brady's would pollute Peruta going forth.

    This leaves Richard as the remaining pure case, he says...and it more directly impacts CA State Statute (vs Sheriffs execution).

    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf
     
    Inigoes

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,538
    SoMD / West PA
    esqappellate said:
    The order states that the parties have 21 days to file briefs on whether the case should be reheard en banc. Under the 9th circuit general order, once the briefs are in, the active judges have 21 days to exchange memos among themselves. The en banc coordinator then calls for a vote and the judges on the court have 14 days to cast a vote. A failure to vote is deemed a "no" vote. So it is 21 + 21 + 14 which equals 56. Roughly two months for a decision on whether to grant rehearing en banc (not two weeks)
    Click to expand...

    One month down, one month to go :tap:
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    USTASC banner ad - training

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,424
    Messages
    7,281,101
    Members
    33,451
    Latest member
    SparkyKoT

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom